|
NCYL joined as amicus curiae in two consolidated cases regarding the State of Washington’s denial of marriage equality to same-sex couples. Amici urged the Court to affirm the trial court decisions, which found the statute denying marriage equality unconstitutional.
S.J. was adjudicated dependent and in Pennsylvania’s foster care system prior to her 18th birthday. Upon completing high school and before turning 18, S.J. petitioned the court to allow her to remain in care while she attended college. NCYL joined as amicus curiae, arguing that the Juvenile Act, the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, the Foster Care Independence Act and Pennsylvania case law support the juvenile court’s authority to continue its jurisdiction over S.J. while she pursues a college education and to order CYA to provide limited financial support.
Sharon S. requested that the Superior Court of San Diego dismiss her partner's (Annette F.) petition to adopt the child they were raising together - despite Sharon's prior consent to the adoption. The superior court denied the motion and Sharon appealed. NCYL submitted amicus curiae briefs in the court of appeal and the Supreme Court arguing that adoption statutes, policies, and case law must focus on the best interests of the child, and not arbitrarily or categorically exclude potential adoptive parents due to gender, marital status, or sexual orientation.
Brought to challenge the Florida statute, which provides that “No person eligible to adopt under this statute may adopt if that person is a homosexual.”The suit argues that the Florida law violates the federal constitutional right to equal protection and family integrity.
A class action lawsuit filed October 30, 2002, which NCYL joined as amicus curiae, against New York City’s Administration of Children Services (ACS) challenging its practices of removing children from battered mothers on the basis of neglect when the mothers themselves have done nothing wrong. Parties settled, agreeing that domestic violence does not automatically warrant placement of children in foster care.
Elisa B. sought a writ to set aside a decision of the El Dorado County Superior Court whereby she was found to be a legal parent of, and ordered to pay child support for, children born during her relationship with another woman. NCYL joined amicus curea, arguing that a parent, regardless of gender or marital status, is obligated to support a child born through assisted reproductive technology where that parent consented to, and was involved in, the insemination decision and process.
The Administration for Children's Services (ACS) appealed from an order of the New York County Family Court, filed in Feb 2007, directing ACS to arrange and pay for respondent Mariah L. to undergo sexual reassignment surgery. NCYL filed amicus in support of an affirmance of the Family Court's order, requiring ACS to provide Mariah with all medically necessary health care, including but not limited to sexual reassignment surgery.
When Guthrie G. was 14 years old, police officers went to his home to question him about his possible possession of a gun. Guthrie invited them in, and the police officers questioned Guthrie about the gun. He told them he had a BB gun. Amici argue that Guthrie’s confession and the police officers’ search was unconstitutional because the state did not prove that he voluntarily consented to the search or made a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right against self-incrimination.
Suit challenging a district court's refusal to certify a class of prisoners who have serious unmet mental health needs. The district court denied class certification to prisoners at the El Paso County Jail in Colorado Springs, Colorado, based on a belief that the term "serious mental illness" is vague, and that it is too complex to determine which individuals present a need for mental health treatment while confined.
A California juvenile court found that George T., a high school student, had made a criminal threat in violation of California Penal Code Section 422 by writing a poem and giving it to fellow students in his English Honors Class. The amicus brief supported the student’s contention that the poem was a lawful exercise of his First Amendment rights and not a criminal threat under the California Penal Code.
|
